Advice for young black boys after Trayvon Martin killing

I read a lot - books, articles, magazines, newspapers and journals - but few writings have evoked my emotions like a piece writing by Touré, published on TIME Ideas on 21 March 2012. The well-written piece titled: "How to Talk to Young Black Boys About Trayvon Martin" was written following the killing of Trayvon Martin and provides advice to young black boys.

You've probably heard about Trayvon Martin (see picture) -  a 17-year-old unarmed black teenager shot dead on his way from a convenience store by a volunteer watchman in a neighborhood in Sanford Florida. According to the watchman, George Zimmerman, 28, Martin looked suspicious and "up to no good". The shooter claimed self-defense after the killing and he has not been arrested or charged. Inaction by the Sanford Police Department sparked protests and allegations of racism and discrimination in law enforcement.

"How to Talk to Young Black Boys About Trayvon Martin" contains 8 points about the "potentially fatal condition of being black". The first point reads as follows:

"It’s unlikely but possible that you could get killed today. Or any day. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth. Black maleness is a potentially fatal condition. I tell you that not to scare you but because knowing that could save your life. There are people who will look at you and see a villain or a criminal or something fearsome. It’s possible they may act on their prejudice and insecurity. Being black could turn an ordinary situation into a life-or-death moment even if you’re doing nothing wrong."

The 8 talking points highlight potential dangers of being a young black man.

It is a shame that we - people of African descent - a people with a long history of discrimination, disenfranchisement, inhuman treatment and other forms of untold human rights violations - continue to feel threatened by racism and suffer prejudice and unequal treatment in modern-day societies - because of skin color. Many of us are law abiding citizens with a lot of potential, but to racist and prejudiced eyes, we are "less human, less valuable, less worthy, less beautiful, less intelligent". We all know this is not true.

A 17-year-old unarmed teenager just lost his life because he looked suspicious. As of the time of this writing, his shooter has not been arrested or charged - even though he is known and within reach. There is no denying the fact that any black kid could be a Trayvon Martin.

The authorities must investigate what happened in that neighborhood in Sanford Florida on 26 February 2012 and bring the shooter to book. Failure to arrest and prosecute George Zimmerman for the killing of an unarmed teenager will make a mockery of justice, the rule of law and civil rights in the the U.S. and beyond.

*Photo source: The Guardian.

Share

Tweet

Demand justice for fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin

March 21 is designated International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The day is an opportunity to remember the "pernicious impact" of racism. In the words of Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN, "racism continues to cause suffering, for millions of people around the world...". In many parts of the world, individuals and families bear the brunt of racism and racial discrimination. Recently, for instance, a grieving mother in Florida said her son, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was killed because of the "color of his skin".

Trayvon Martin was shot dead in Sanford, Florida on 26 February 2012, by a volunteer neighborhood watchman. The killer, George Zimmerman, 28 years old, claimed he killed the unarmed teenager in "self-defense" and he has not been arrested or charged since the killing. This has reignited allegations of racism in the U.S justice system.

Trayvon Martin was reportedly shot dead on his way home from a convenience store. Before the shooting, Zimmerman, the neighborhood's volunteer watchman, called the police and reported a suspicious man in the neighborhood.  According to a record of the call released by the police, Zimmerman the watchman told the 911 police dispatcher that the teenager "looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something". The watchman then followed the teenager and pulled the trigger after a scuffle. It is plausible to conclude that Trayvon Martin was suspected because of his looks.

Surprisingly or not surprisingly - depending on how you see it - the police accepted Zimmerman's claim that he killed the unarmed teenager in self-defense.

Zimmerman's self defense claim, in my opinion, does not meet the "proportionality" standard. Force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat or perceived threat of harm. Pulling the trigger in this case was unreasonable, unnecessary and amounted to disproportionate use of force against an unarmed teenager who had with no criminal record.

Letting George Zimmerman walk free after a cold-blooded killing adds weight to reports of racism in the U.S justice system.

Many people, me included, argue that if it was a person of African descent who shot an unarmed white teenager in "self-defense", the outcome would have been completely different. Unlike George Zimmerman, s/he would have been arrested without delay and charged for murder, and the prosecution would have most probably demanded the maximum penalty.

Some have argued (see opinion piece by Carolyn Edgar, a lawyer and writer in New York City, published on CNN on 19 March 2012) that Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman, acted in self-defense. But the Sandford police chief, Bill Lee, reportedly characterized the victim as the aggressor and blamed him for "beating the crap" out of George Zimmerman before being shot in "self-defense". It is unclear whether the police chief would have blamed the victim if he was a white kid - killed by a black volunteer watchman.

In Florida, the use of force in self defense is permissible if the person claiming self-defense uses force as permitted by law.

In my opinion, from the "proportionality" standpoint, the use of lethal force by George Zimmerman is not justifiable, neither is it permitted  under s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 of the Florida Statutes governing justifiable use of force. Hence Zimmerman does not have immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action. He should be arrested, charged and prosecuted. Failure to do so will set a dangerous precedent in Florida.

Following the reluctance of Sanford Police Department to bring George Zimmerman to book, the U.S. Justice Department announced on 20 March 2012 that it will investigate the killing. In the interest of justice, the investigation must be impartial and void of any form of racial prejudice, stigma or bias.

It is a shame and a blow to the credibility of the Sanford Police Department - and the U.S justice system in general - that the 2012 International Day for the Elimination of Racism was marked by accusations of racism and double standards in law enforcement.

Share

Tweet

Make every day a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Although Martin Luther King, Jr. is remembered in one way or the other - every day of every year - in the U.S. and beyond, the U.S. pauses officially once a year to honor this great American. On 2 November 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill creating a national holiday - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day - a day dedicated to remember Dr. King and what he stood for. [Source].

This year, 2012, Martin Luther King Day is on Monday, 16 January. It is worthy to note at this point that Martin Luther King Day has no fixed date. It is observed every year - since 1986 - on the third Monday of January. [Source].

A lot has been written about Dr. King. He was a civil rights icon who led a non-violent movement against racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S. He advocated equality and non-violent protest in the face of unprecedented discrimination, disenfranchisement, brutality and other forms of injustice targeting Americans of African descent.

This great American is best known for his "I Have A Dream" speech - a compelling speech delivered in August 1963 to a crowd of a quarter of a million people at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.



I do not keep copies of speeches, but I must confess - a copy of this landmark speech is in one of my files. I printed it out sometime in 2007 and carefully read it. It made sense then as it makes sense today.

Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, but his words live on and continue to inspire hope for a world void of racial segregation and discrimination.

In many parts of the world, individuals are still being "judged by the color of their skin."

I am confident that if Dr. King were alive today, he would agree that although some progress has been made in the fight against racial discrimination, "traces of bigotry still mar America" and many other countries. There is still a lot of work to be done.

He would unequivocally condemn all human rights violations, including the death penalty - which, according to Laura Moye, Death Penalty Abolition Campaign Director at Amnesty International USA, is "discriminatory and used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities."

You are encouraged to stand up for human rights. Promote and respect the rights of all individuals, irrespective of race, color or other grounds, and make every day a Martin Luther King Day.

*Photo: Write Spirit.

Share

Tweet

Interracial Marriage Ban: Kentucky Church upholds practice akin to Apartheid

First Published in: Dunia Magazine

"... the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church does not condone interracial marriage. Parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions..."

The world is yet to forget apartheid in South Africa and its devastating impact on black South Africans. Under the apartheid regime, "non-white" South Africans - the majority of the population - faced state-sponsored and institutional racism of untold proportions. Blatant racism was the order of the day in apartheid South Africa. Racism and racially motivated crimes were backed by immoral laws designed to completely destroy a group of people and hold them captive in their own country. Immoral apartheid laws in South Africa included the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act introduced in 1949 - a law that prohibited interracial marriages, and what was called the Immorality Act - which outlawed interracial sexual relations. [Source: Long Walk To Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela, page 98].

Apartheid, "a crazy concept born of prejudice and fear" - in the words of Jan Christiaan Smuts, collapsed in South Africa in 1994. However, 17 years later, practices akin to apartheid continue to be upheld in many communities around the world.

Recently in Kentucky, a church reportedly banned interracial marriage and denied a young couple the right to marry, as laid down in Article 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which the United States of America is party.

Members of the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, located in Pike County, according to news reports, voted to ban interracial marriages after a white member of the church engaged to a black African from Zimbabwe. Hell apparently broke loose after the engagement and a pastor, identified as Melvin Thompson, made a misguided recommendation against interracial marriage.

The congregation voted overwhelmingly in favor of the anti-interracial marriage proposal put forward by the pastor. [Source].

Some members of the church chose not to vote.

Those who abstained from voting are as guilty of racism as the architect of the proposal and those who voted in favor.

People of goodwill must always vote against racism - when it comes down to a vote.

It has been said that if you're neutral in a situation of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

Ironically, the church is called Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church. A name-change ought to be considered.

A ban on interracial marriage strongly suggests that the word "freewill" should be erased from the name of the church, since the institution obviously does not respect the freewill of its members of marriageable age to marry - irrespective of race.

The right to marry should not be denied on grounds of race, color, descent or ethnicity.

It is worth mentioning that the Gulnare [Freewill] Baptist Church, which is now famous for all the wrong reasons, is not the only institution in the world that upholds practices akin to apartheid.

In November 2011, it was reported that a school is Norway racially segregated students. Bjerke Upper Secondary School in Oslo, capital of Norway, grouped students based on race, in a bid to retain ethnic Norwegians in the school. What a shame.

Racism is unconstitutional in the United States and other free countries, it is illegal under international law and should be stamped out in all its forms. Racism should be condemned in the strongest terms when and wherever it prevails.

A ban on interracial marriage has no place in a free and democratic society.

*Photo: salon.com.

Share

Tweet

Troy Davis execution fuels fight against death penalty

It is no secret that the state of Georgia executed Troy Davis earlier this week - ignoring millions of petitions and days, weeks, months and years of campaigning to stop the execution due to so much doubt surrounding the conviction.

Human rights groups and millions of people around the world expressed concern about the possibility of Troy Davis' innocence and urged the state of Georgia to stop the execution.

Troy Davis was convicted in 1991 for the murder of a police officer. His conviction was based on nine eyewitness accounts. There was no murder weapon or physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the murder. There was no DNA evidence. As if this was not enough, seven out of the nine star prosecution witnesses changed or recanted their testimonies. This raised genuine questions about the conviction.

On 21 September 2011, Troy Davis was executed and pronounced dead at 11:08pm local time. This marked a shameful victory for the state killing machine and highlighted flaws in the U.S. legal system.

Despite the grave injustice demonstrated by the state of Georgia in the Troy Davis case, there is a glimmer of hope for the abolition of the death penalty in the U.S. - the only country in the Americas that still kills its citizens in the name of justice.

The case inspired millions to join the cause against the death penalty. Many have seen the reality of the possibility of the execution of an innocent individual. Many realized that "we are all Troy Davises." Anyone could be convicted based only on eyewitness accounts and executed despite recantations and doubts.

Before you support the death penalty and "feel relief and peace" after someone is executed, think again. Keep in mind that anyone, including you, could be wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted and wrongfully executed in a country where the death penalty is exacted.

The execution of Troy Davis marked a low point in the U.S. legal system and highlighted the reason why the death penalty should be abolished in the U.S. and all other countries that still have capital punishment in legislation.

Troy Davis is dead, but the fight against the dead penalty in the U.S. is stronger than ever.

"If one of our fellow citizens can be executed with so much doubt surrounding his guilt, then the death penalty system in our country is unjust and outdated." 

- Jimmy Carter, former U.S. President.

*Photo: MailOnline.

Share

Tweet

Human Rights Clash with Fashion on Catwalk, Gulnara Show Cancelled

First Published in: Dunia Magazine

It is not very often that human rights clash with fashion on the catwalk, but recent history suggests that when they do come head to head in a democratic and free society, human rights carry the day. We saw it in France in March 2011 when French fashion powerhouse – Christian Dior – fired its artistic designer, John Galliano, one of the best designers in the business, for uttering racist and hateful comments in a Paris pub. The courts took it a notch further by slapping Galliano earlier this month with a 6000 euro ($8,421) suspended fine for his derogatory comments.

The recent cancellation of a New York Fashion Week show this September, due to pressure from rights groups adds weight to the assertion that abuse – in any form whatsoever – is never fashionable.

On 9 September 2011, IMG Worldwide Inc (IMG), the organizer of New York Fashion Week, announced the cancellation of the show of Gulnara Karimova, daughter of the President of Uzbekistan*. She doubles as Uzbekistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations and Ambassador to Spain. Her show was called off due to her country’s “atrocious human rights record” and her links to the repressive regime that denies its people, including children, basic rights and freedoms.

Gulnara Karimova, 39, was scheduled to showcase the 2012 Spring Collection of her clothing line – “Guli” – at the Lincoln Center during Fashion Week on 15 September 2011 but the show was nicked thanks to rigorous campaigning by Human Rights Watch and other rights groups and individuals of good will in New York.

Some of the rights violations linked to President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and his daughter Gulnara include forced child labour in cotton farms, widespread and systematic torture and brutal repression of political dissent. The government of Uzbekistan also stifles free association, free assembly and free speech by throwing journalists and human rights activists behind bars. This government to which Gulnara is associated has forced several non-governmental institutions like Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and others in the country to shutdown.

Human Rights Watch reports that in order to stop Gulnara Karimova from showcasing her clothing line, the organization reached out to IMG and Fashion Week’s official sponsor, Mercedes-Benz. The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch spoke with the management of IMG about the need for the prestigious Fashion Week to distance itself from abusers and their cronies.

In Uzbekistan, about 2 million children, according to Human Rights Watch, are required by the government to drop out of school each year and work for two months “in difficult and dangerous conditions” picking cotton – some of which is used in Gulnara’s Collections.Perpetrators of rights violations, those associated with abuse or and those who benefit from abuse must be challenged on all fronts – even if it means taking the fight to the catwalk. The cancellation of Gulnara’s show is a move in the right direction and a testament to the conviction that when human rights clash with fashion on the catwalk in a free society, rights should prevail.

It is now up to Gulnara Karimova to use her positions of influence as eldest daughter of a dictator, Uzbekistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Ambassador to Spain, to restore the dignity of child labourers and all individuals with limited rights in Uzbekistan — or at least, distance herself from the repressive Uzbek regime.

If she decides to stay on the wrong side of history, she should keep in mind that, in the words of Steve Swerdlow, Human Rights Watch’s Uzbekistan researcher, “enslaving children and torturing dissidents is never chic.”

*The Republic of Uzbekistan is located in Central Asia. It was part of the Soviet Union.
*Photo of Gulnara, Cannes Film Festival 2010: Style Guru.

Share

Tweet

Troy Davis scheduled to be killed

On 7 September, Amnesty International, a human right organization, sent an email alert to supporters about the scheduled killing of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia. According to the email, Troy Davis is scheduled to be killed on 21 September 2011, just 11 days from today.

Troy Anthony Davis was convicted for the murder of a police officer in Savannah, Georgia, USA. He was sentenced to death and has been on death row since 1991.

Seven out of the nine main eyewitnesses who testified during the trial of Davis and linked him to the killing have recanted their testimonies, and the convict has maintained that he is innocent. Some of the witnesses said they were coerced by the police to testify against Davis. The murder weapon has never been found and there is no physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the murder. Even some jurors who convicted Davis have expressed concern about the looming execution. [Source].

Despite the many questions surrounding his guilt, the state of Georgia has scheduled the execution of Troy Davis. His guilt has not been proven "beyond reasonable doubt."

An innocent man could be executed on 21 September 2011.

Amnesty International is running a campaign to stop the execution of Troy Davis. The organization is asking rights supporters to sign a petition opposing the death penalty for Troy Davis because doubts about his guilt have not been cleared.

Many prominent individuals, including former US President Jimmy Carter and civil rights activist Al Sharpton oppose the killing of Troy Davis because "the doubts about the Davis case have not been resolved..." and "Georgia might execute an innocent man..."

Photo source.

You are encouraged to sign the petition. Do not let Georgia kill Troy Davis.

Troy's story evokes memories of the fictional case of Donte Drumm, a prisoner sentenced to death in John Grisham's book - The Confession.

Facts About Capital Punishment published by Amnesty International reveal that capital punishment is deeply flawed and more than 130 people have been released from death rows in the US due to wrongful convictions.

"I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate." 

[George Ryan, 39th Governor of Illinois].

Share

Tweet

Racism in the US legal system

Racism and discrimination based on skin color are social ills that prey on millions of innocent people - men, women and children - every single day, all around world. Victims of racism and discrimination are uncountable; perpetrators are known and are within reach, but very few face justice for the crime - either due to lack of political will to uphold the dignity of a group of people or the absence of appropriate legislation to clamp down on racists.

An interesting program that airs on Press TV every week puts racism in the US into perspective. The program, titled "American Dream" is described on Press TV's website as "a weekly program giving a warts-and-all of life in the USA from ghettos to gated communities to the White House."

The 8 August 2011 edition shines the spotlight on racism in the US legal system.

This edition, according to Press TV, is based on a study that shows a correlation between racism and injustice in the US legal system.



Institutionalized racism and racism in all other forms must be unequivocally condemned.

Alleged racism in the US legal system is unacceptable and undermines the position of the US as the "land of the free." Institutionalized racism in the US contravenes the respected US Constitution and all internationally accepted standards.

People should not be judged or treated based on race or skin color.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. 

Share

Tweet

Court upholds torture lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld

It is well-known that the administration of George W. Bush subjected thousands of individuals to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Rights groups around the world have urged the U.S. government to investigate the well-documented and shocking allegations of torture, and bring the perpetrators to justice. A U.S. court ruling reveals that it is possible to drag top ranking torture advocates like Donald Rumfeld, former U.S. Defense Secretary, to court.

On 8 August 2011, the Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Donald Rumfeld could be held liable for acts of torture exacted against two U.S. citizens who were held without charge by U.S. military personnel in Iraq in 2006.

According to the court, two American civilians were allegedly detained and tortured in 2006 by U.S. military personnel in Camp Cropper, a U.S. military prison in Baghdad, Iraq. The plaintiffs, identified as Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, were allegedly subjected to enhanced "interrogation techniques," including sleep, food and water deprivation, and other forms of physical and psychological torture. They were held in solitary confinement in separate cells, without legal representation and "...each had a concrete slab for a bed..."  throughout the unlawful detention period.

Donald Vance was reportedly detained for three months and Nathan Ertel was held for six weeks. Both were released without charge.

The Court of Appeals termed the torture allegations - "extraordinary" - and upheld, among other things, the decision of a lower court to dismiss Rumsfeld's motion to kill the case.

The court affirmed that Secretary Rumsfeld could be held personally responsible for allegations of torture (see pages 14-30 of the judgement) and that he is not protected by "qualified immunity" (pages 30-42 of judgement).

The Appeals Court's decision comes less than one month after Human Rights Watch urged the Obama administration, in a detailed 107-page report, to investigate George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former CIA Director George Tenet and of course, Donald Rumsfeld - for alleged torture.

It is interesting to note that some of the torture techniques allegedly used against Vance and Ertel are similar to torture techniques exposed by Human Rights Watch in its report.

The lawsuit brought against Donald Rumsfeld is a civil lawsuit and the former Defense Secretary could appeal the decision of the Chicago Court of Appeals.

There is overwhelming evidence of torture authorized by top officials in the Bush administration. The perpetrators are not above the law. They should be investigated and brought to justice.

The two victims of alleged torture by U.S. military personnel  filed a case against Rumfeld on 18 December 2006. It remains to be seen whether justice would take its course.

Watch the following video in which one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Rumsfeld speaks about his ordeal and quest for justice.

Share

Tweet

U.S.: UN Special Rapporteur on Torture denied access to Wikileaks suspect

At a time when the U.S. is echoing calls for democracy and human rights in North Africa and the Middle East, allegations of torture, cruel and inhuman treatment of a high-profile prisoner in the U.S. have gone uninvestigated. A U.S. soldier - Bradley Manning (see photo) - who was arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of leaking classified information, including 25,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks has reportedly been held in solitary confinement since 2010, amidst widespread allegations of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment. The U.S. government has given a deft ear to these allegations and recently denied the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture unmonitored access to Bradley Manning.

Juan E. Méndez, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in a recent televised interview expressed concern about the conditions in which Bradley Manning is being held and the U.S. government's unwillingness to grant unmonitored access to the detained soldier.

During the interview, he spoke about the case of Bradley Manning, solitary confinement and what constitutes cruel, inhuman treatment or torture.



Denying the UN Special Rapporteur unmonitored access to a victim of alleged torture interferes with the work of the Rapporteur and the Human Rights Council of the UN as a whole. The U.S. government should grant the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture unconditional access to Bradley Manning and investigate allegations of cruelty against the soldier.

Blocking UN access to a victim of alleged torture undermines the U.S. government's voice in international human rights discourse and emboldens repressive regimes

Share

Tweet

Illinois bans death penalty

This might be staled news, but the time is always right to applaud a move in the right direction. Last week, the State of Illinois, with the signature of Governor Pat Quinn (Patrick Quinn), 41st Governor of Illinois, abolished the death penalty. To this effect, no one in Illinois will be subjected to State-sponsored killing.

On 9 March 2011, the governor signed a historic bill - abolishing the death penalty. He also substituted the death sentence of 15 inmates in Illinois with life in prison - without parole or "any chance of release."

According to Chicago Tribune, the death penalty had been in place in Illinois since it was reinstated 1977, and the system was tainted by "bias, error and incompetence."

Personally, I oppose the death penalty because I believe it is an immoral and degrading form of punishment. It undermines the principle of human dignity which states have the moral and legal obligation to uphold. States ought to punish; not commit murder.

Besides, given the high rate of wrongful or discriminatory convictions in many states, including Illinois, Texas, and other states and countries around the world, the risk of claiming an innocent life is real.

I welcome the abolition of the death penalty in Illinois under the leadership of Governor Pat Quinn, and commend the governor - and lawmakers who support the ban - for restoring human dignity and respect for human life in Illinois.

The death penalty violates respect for human life. By practicing it, a state shoots itself in the foot.

Amnesty International notes that Illinois is the 16th state in the U.S. to abolish the death penalty.

Watch a video statement from Governor Pat Quinn on the abolition of the death penalty in Illinois.

Share

Tweet

The U.S. should respect rights and demands of Egyptians

Photo: Sulekha.com.

Egypt is in chaos as thousands of Egyptians have taken to the streets to demand political reform and an end to 30 years of repression under the leadership of President Hosni Mubarak. For the past five days, demonstrators have suffered in the hands of President Mubarak's so-called "no-nonsense" security agents who suppress the rights and demands of Egyptians - including the right to association, assembly and expression - with lethal  force powered by live bullets, batons, boots, water canons and teargas reportedly made in the U.S.

The oppressive Mubarak regime is the second largest recipient of U.S. aid (largely military aid). This revelation has amplified calls for the U.S. to stop funding an undemocratic regime and respect the rights and demands of the Egyptian people.

It's interesting to note that according to Reuters, the U.S. has given Egypt an average of 2 billion dollars a year since 1979. In 2010 alone, Egypt received 1.3 billion dollars in military aid.

President Mubarak has been in power since October 1981 without the support of a majority of Egyptians. But he enjoys the support of the U.S. and considered a "key" U.S. ally. This is testament to the fact that the U.S. has religiously supported 30 years of oppression in Egypt. For more than 30 years, successive U.S. administrations have closely worked with a regime that cracks down on basic rights and freedoms of its citizens.

Egyptians have had enough and have taken to the streets to protest and voice concerns over 30 years of [U.S. funded] oppression.

Watching the demonstrations on a program titled "Egypt in Crisis" on CNN International this Sunday morning, an embattled demonstrator held up a slogan that caught my attention. The slogan which read: "USA Stop supporting Mubarak..." was hard to ignore. This is a genuine concern.

The U.S. should respect the rights and demands of oppressed Egyptians and stop supporting a government which is neither "by the people" or "for the people."

Share

Tweet

West African girls enslaved in New Jersey freed

Almost every nation has outlawed all forms of slavery, but I was shocked this afternoon to learn that more than 20 West African girls were trafficked from Ghana and Togo, and held as slaves in the U.S., precisely in Newark, New Jersey, many years after the "land of the free" abolished all forms of slavery and servitude.

The girls were promised a world-class education and trafficked to the U.S., but upon arrival, they were held as slaves - working "7 days a week", sometimes "14 hours" a day in hair dressing salons for almost a decade. They lived in a middle class neighborhood and walked the streets, unnoticed, to and from work everyday. The traffickers collected all the money (including tips) the girls earned working as hair dressers.

After watching the report today on News Stream - a programme on CNN International anchored by Kristie Lu Stout - I managed to find a short video that briefly illustrates the plight of the young West African girls . Watch.



This case brings to mind the story of African women trafficked to Russia by a human trafficking and prostitution ring operating between Russia and Ghana (note that Ghana is mentioned in both cases of trafficking to Russia and the U.S.), and highlights the "slave owner" role played by Africans in modern-day slavery.

The traffickers in this New Jersey case are reportedly Africans - a husband, wife and son. A court recently sentenced them to 24, 27 and 4.5 years in prison, respectively.

Human trafficking is an unspeakable and intolerable violation of human rights, dignity and security of persons. Traffickers should bear the full weight of the law.

Share

Tweet

White bank robber disguised as black male

Photo of Conrad Zdzierak with and without mask.

Two days ago, a friend shared a compelling article on Facebook. The article tells the story of Conrad Zdzierak - a white bank robber in Ohio who disguised like a black man during his robberies.

He allegedly robbed four banks before he was arrested in April 2010. Yes, this happened way back in April but it's a story worth retelling - in case you missed it.

As you'd expect, the police went looking for an African-American suspect. Fortunately, no case of wrongful arrest was reported., but you can only imagine what could have happened if Conrad left no trace.

He confidently and successfully robbed four banks because he was aware of the fact that police officers were on the lookout for the "usual suspects". This case echoes wrongful arrests and convictions in the United States and beyond, and challenges the authorities to broaden the scope of investigations.

The disguise was, arguably, a calculated attempt by 30-year old  Conrad Zdzierak to evade justice and further stigmatize a vulnerable group of people.

Share

Tweet

Justification of torture by George W. Bush sends wrong message

In his first interview since leaving office in 2009, former U.S. President George W. Bush shouldered responsibility for authorizing torture, and sent across a wrong message by attempting to justify waterboarding - a form of torture, and other cruel and inhuman practices against detainees.

Watch part of the compelling interview below:



The U.S. is party to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) which it ratified in October 1994.

For clarity, article 1 of the Convention defines torture as: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

With the consent and authorization of George W. Bush, detainees in detention facilities like Guantanamo Bay were intentionally tortured for the purpose of obtaining information or confessions.

The U.S. has a moral, and legal obligation under international law to prosecute the perpetrators of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees. The victims are numerous and the perpetrators, including state agents who destroyed evidence of torture, are within reach. Failure to prosecute the culprits, even after such a public confession and shocking justification of cruelty by former President George W. Bush would further weaken the position of the U.S. in human rights discourse both at home and abroad.

As stipulated in article 2(2) of CAT, there is no exception to the law against torture. Freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a non-derogable right.

Share

Tweet

Lady Gaga: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" video message

I'm not a big fan of Lady Gaga and I never thought I'd be writing about the popstar, but like I said in an earlier article - when celebrities use their star power to do more than entertain, they earn my admiration and respect. This explains why I recently became a fan of Ben Affleck, Isaiah Washington --- and now Lady Gaga --- whose recent video message to the U.S. Senate about the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy caught my attention.

The video was posted on YouTube on September 17, 2010 and as of this moment, it has registered 1, 303,113 views. The video message from Lady Gaga about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy speaks for itself. WATCH...



I have newfound respect for Lady Gaga for standing up against injustice and inequality in the United States armed forces. Homosexuality remains a controversial topic and very few "straight" individuals have the audacity to publicly defend the rights of homosexuals.

It is true that I'm not trying to "agree with" or justify homosexuality. But it is also true that I'm an advocate for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other significant human rights instruments that prohibit discrimination and unequal treatment of individuals. Article 2 of the UDHR states: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status..."

Where would you draw the line?

As Lady Gaga rightly pointed out in the video message - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is discriminatory, unconstitutional and should be repealed.

Christiane Amanpour, one of my favorite news reporters and anchors once said, "it often takes high-profile people to remind the world of a massive injustice." Join Lady Gaga to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
*Photo: Lady Gaga official Site.

Share

Tweet

Students call U.S. lawmakers to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Photo source: The Huffington Post

Simply defined - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a policy that forbids gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers in the United States military from revealing their sexual orientation. The policy also restricts military superiors from asking or investing the sexual orientation of servicemen and women - unless there is solid evidence of homosexuality. Civil rights advocates - including President Barack Obama - have advocated a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to allow homosexuals to freely and openly serve in the U.S. armed forces. On September 14, 2010, in a commendable display of tolerance and human rights advocacy, two University of Colorado students organised a small campaign - calling U.S. lawmakers to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The two students - identified as Lauren and Ellie - posted a video of themselves on YouTube, calling the office of the Senator for Colorado - Michael Bennet. In the short phone call, they urged the lawmaker to vote in favor of a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." WATCH...



From the video, it is evident that the students are firmly against the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and guess what --- Senator Micheal Bennet responded to the students' call in a very short video. WATCH...



Last week, I wrote about using video for human rights advocacy. These two young students have just made their voices heard through video and have drawn their senator's attention to their campaign.

What are your thoughts? Should "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" be repealed?

On September 9, 2010, a federal judge ruled that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is unconstitutional, but remains to be seen whether the U.S. Senate will repeal the law.

On a side note: I look forward to the day when students and voters in my country - Cameroon - would be able to freely call up lawmakers (parliamentarians) and make their voices heard. Until that day, I'm afraid the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a myth in Cameroon and many other African states.

Share

Tweet

U.S: Undocumented Immigrants face sexual abuse in detention facilities

Last week, a news release by Human Rights Watch, revealed that in the U.S., undocumented immigrants face sexual abuse, harassment and assault in detention facilities. The immigration debate in many countries, including the U.S., has taken a negative tone, but should illegal immigrants in detention be left at the mercy of guards who sexually abuse, assault and harass women in detention facilities?

According to Human Rights Watch, in May 2010, a guard at the T. Don Hutto immigration facility in Texas allegedly "groped women" in detention. It is worth mentioning that this alleged sexual abuse of women at the T. Don Hutto immigration facility in not the only reported incident.

In 2008, five undocumented immigrants - women - were assaulted by a guard, in their rooms at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas.

You might be tempted to think that undocumented immigrants in detention face sexual abuse only in detention facilities in Texas because the aforementioned cases occurred in Texas, but reports of sexual abuse, harassment and assault have been documented in detention facilities in many states - New York, Washington State, New Jersey, Wisconsin, California, and Arizona.

It is true that the frequency of sexual abuse of undocumented immigrants in detention in the U.S. cannot be measured because many cases go unreported, since many victims are deported while abusive guards, more often than not, go unpunished and ready to take on the next victim.

You would agree that undocumented immigrants, by virtue of being human, have inherent rights, and should not be left at the mercy of guards in detention facilities. Undocumented immigrants are a vulnerable group of people who should be fully protected by the State. More importantly, perpetrators of sexual abuse in detention facilities should be brought to justice! Impunity sends a wrong message to perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse.

In a recent report published on August 25, 2010, Human Rights Watch sheds light on reported incidents, as well as allegations of sexual abuse in immigration detention centres in the U.S. The rights group also makes recommendations on how the issue could be addressed.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Congress will make a moves in the right direction, based on recommendations by Human Rights Watch - to end sexual abuse, assault and harassment of undocumented immigrants in immigration detention facilities. 

Photo: AS IT STANDS.

Share

Tweet

Michael Anthony Green: Wrongful Conviction for Rape in Texas

I'm a jurist. But, with due respect for the law, sometimes I wonder whether some court verdicts represent justice or mere courtroom victories. The case of the wrongful conviction of Texas man - Michael Anthony Green for rape leaves me with no doubt that a good number of court verdicts, are arguably mere courtroom victories.

Michael A. Green, now 44 years old, is an African American male who was wrongfully convicted of rape, and spent 27 years of his life in jail, for a crime he did not commit.

Today, while reading the story of Michael A. Green, it dawned on me that this could happen to anyone. You could be wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted by a well-constituted court for a crime you did not commit, especially in the U.S criminal justice system where the law allows victims of crime to identify suspects in a lineup or photographs. According to Innocence Project, most of the 258 wrongful convictions in the U.S. stem from flaws in the the justice system like misidentification. Michael A. Green is one of the many innocent people convicted by a flawed criminal justice system.

In 1983, Michael A. Green was arrested and wrongfully convicted by a well-constituted court for abducting and raping a white girl. Pictures of suspects were shown to the victim and behold - she identified an innocent man - Michael A. Green - as one of her four attackers in a lineup of suspects.

Following the misidentification, Michael A. Green refused to plead guilty and was sentenced to 75 years behind bars.

After spending 27 years in prison, Michael A. Green was released a few weeks ago after DNA testing exonerated him. It is worth mentioning that the DNA testing was in line with a law passed in 2001 in Texas - granting convicts the right to request DNA tests to prove innocence.

Michael A. Green was exonerated of rape and walked out of jail a free man on 30 July 2010, but many innocent people are still behind bars.

What are your thoughts? Did the conviction of Michael A. Green represent justice for the victim or a mere courtroom victory?

Many innocent men and women are victims of courtroom victories and remind incarcerated in jails all around the world for crimes they did not commit. Reviewing cases to prove innocence is worthwhile in the administration of justice. More importantly, the process of identifying suspects in lineups or mug shots should be reviewed. Commonsense tell you that victims of rape are more often than not traumatised, and in the quest for justice, could pick a wrong person as the assailant.

Read more about the circumstances surrounding the wrongful conviction of Michael Anthony Green for rape in Texas, here.

Share

Tweet

U.S. Justice Department drags Arizona to court over Anti-Immigration Law

The U.S. Justice Department has challenged the constitutionality of a  Misguided Immigration Law in Arizona, in a court of law. The immigration law requires people in the state to  carry immigration documents at all times, and  calls on the police to detain anyone - with "reasonable suspicion" - for evidence of legal status. The new law, which is scheduled to go into force at the end of this month, sparked protests from immigrants and immigrat rights advocates in the U.S. President Obama has criticized the law, branding it "misguided" and "unenforceable". Critics of the law argue that it would lead to civil rights violations and racial and ethnic profiling against Latinos in Arizona. This is the case because it is reasonably forseeable that under the law, Latinos in Arizona would be subject to unreasonable police stops and questioning. Mindful of the fact that Arizona is struggling to curb illegal immigration from Mexico, the residency status of many hispanics legally residing in the U.S. would be unduly questioned by the police - simply because they look like the many undocumented immigrants from Mexico. In a bid to stop this law from going into force on 29 July 2010, the U.S. Justice Department dragged Arizona to court on Tuesday - pleading for an injunction against the anti-immigration law.

The raison d'etre of the lawsuit is the fact that only the Federal government has the power to regulate immigration in the U.S. Lawyers for the Justice Department argue that the controversial immigration law in Arizona is unconstitutional - because under the U.S. Constitution, immigration law is under the jurisdiction of the federal government alone.

It goes without saying that the anti-immigration law in Arizona represents blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and its enactment would set an unwanted precedent - other states would be emboldened to overstep their authority, and make U.S. immigration law a state affair.

The U.S. is arguably the "land of the free" - but Arizona apparently seeks to change this assertion, by requiring free U.S. citizens and lawful residents to carry documents to proof citizenship or legal residency.

Besides violating the U.S. Constitution, the anti-immigration law is a beacon of racial and ethnic profiling. The law exposes Latinos in Arizona to unreasonable police controls - backed by "reasonable suspicion" that they are living in the U.S. illegally. This is the case because the law seeks to curb illegal immgration from Mexico, and punish illegal immigrants in the state - many of whom are Latinos. It is fair to say the law threatens the fundamental freedoms and civil rights of the many Latinos legally residing in the U.S., as well as the rights of many American citizens.

It is true, that Arizona is trying to protect its borders, and it is also true that the anti-immigration law endorses racial and ethnic profiling, and, in the words of President Barack Obama, "has the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents...".

It is therefore good news that the Justice Department has dragged Arizona to court over the anti-immigration law. Time will tell whether the honorable court will grant an injunction against this controversial immigration law.

Read a statement from the U.S. Justice Department, here.

*Photo of Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building: Wikipedia.

Share

Tweet